Finally some concrete details after the ITTF expressed the desire earlier this year to phase out the use of celluloid in the production of table tennis ball.

Propositions to AGM BoD 2011-Results3 wrote:

F - Proposed by the Executive Committee - PASSED

The ITTF Executive Committee and the Equipment Committee shall request from Ball Manufacturers to produce 40mm non-celluloid balls after the 2012 Olympic Games, in preparation for the total ban of celluloid production by national governments around the world, and the Equipment Committee shall adjust the Technical Leaflet in terms of description of the new material and tolerances.

To modify Technical Leaflet T3, The Ball (B.3 Size conformity); onlyapplying to balls not made of celluloid

The minimum diameter of every ball must be at least 39.50mm 40.00mm and its maximum diameter must not exceed 40.50mm 40.60mm. The sample mean average diameter, i.e. the mean of the average of the maximum and minimum diameters for each ball, must be in the range 39.60-40.40mm 40.00-40.50mm. Values below 39.25mm 39.70mm or above 40.75mm are considered in our calculations as outliers.

Well, expect a higher price tag for the new balls and avoid stocking up large quantities of the "gonna-be" old ones.

uuuuuugh~ make it smaller, not bigger! Smaller balls would crack less and are more fair to non power-looping styles.

+1

I think the ITTF is shooting themselves in the foot with this move. I've been thinking about the game and how size affects playing distance. Larger players tend to play better further off of the table and small players tend to stand right up at the table. Smaller balls fly further out than larger balls, allowing one to play further away from the table. So by making it even bigger, you are just going to give a bigger advantage to smaller players. That's really going to help Europe out. Thanks guys

I understand the arguments for and against larger balls... But is increasing the allowance interval by 0.5mm really that big of a deal? After all, this is an allowance interval and many balls (if not most) will be precisely the same size as before. Statistically speaking, many of us have already played with balls that are slightly bigger than 40mm since there is natural variance in the size distribution. I would imagine more skepticism is warranted about the new material.

(I ask with sincerity and not to criticize people's concern... perhaps increasing the interval by 0.5mm will make a big difference. I'd just like to hear how.)

I understand the arguments for and against larger balls... But is increasing the allowance interval by 0.5mm really that big of a deal? After all, this is an allowance interval and many balls (if not most) will be precisely the same size as before. Statistically speaking, many of us have already played with balls that are slightly bigger than 40mm since there is natural variance in the size distribution. I would imagine more skepticism is warranted about the new material.

(I ask with sincerity and not to criticize people's concern... perhaps increasing the interval by 0.5mm will make a big difference. I'd just like to hear how.)

The new range is 40.00mm-40.60mm vs. the old range of 39.50mm-40.50mm. While I do approve of them tightening the range which should help improve consistency of balls being produced, the extra .3mm will change flight characteristics for sure when the ball is subjected to high aerodynamic loading.

I wonder if the weight of the ball will change too.

Once, some guys at the club made their own balls out of ABS and while they were perfectly round and 40mm, they weighed about 2 times as much as a regular ball. It made for an interesting playing experience. By interesting, I mean trying not to get hit by someone's smash because it hurt alot worse

...the extra .3mm will change flight characteristics for sure when the ball is subjected to high aerodynamic loading.

I inferred this much; I was more curious about the magnitude of the differences in flight characteristics

BMonkey wrote:

I wonder if the weight of the ball will change too.

Once, some guys at the club made their own balls out of ABS and while they were perfectly round and 40mm, they weighed about 2 times as much as a regular ball. It made for an interesting playing experience. By interesting, I mean trying not to get hit by someone's smash because it hurt alot worse

This is more what I'm interested in, too. It would seem that heavier balls would wear rubber out faster. Further, it would seem that manufacturers would have to go through yet another design/manufacturing frenzy to generate even thicker blades to keep the speed constant. (E.g., the Allround Evolution Evolution. )

When the ittf folks think about a new rule that might wear out rubbers faster we've got enough to raise people's eyebrows. Maybe that's where their real idea is: make people spend more in rubbers (and probably balls).

However if the weight and diameter of the ball remain about the same how could that happen? difference in roughness of the ball's surface? I doubt it.

One thought: when we hit the ball, it deforms a bit and go back to its normal state. If the new ball does not deform as much (sponge gets stressed harder on a smaller area) or deforms more (more friction on a wider area of the topsheet) the rubber might be more stressed at impact (?).

Did I miss something? Celluloid banned by Nations around the world? All celluloid or just celluloid table tennis balls? No more celluloid key rings, toys and things?

How did all the nations around the world come togather to decide to ban celluloid? Reading the ITTF thing, it sounds like all the nations around the world chooze to ban all things celluloid. Is celluloid dangerous? I know it burns but so do many plastics.

So, are all the nations of the world banning all celluloid use and manufacture independant of the ITTF, or are all the nations in the ITTF banning celluloid balls by agreement through ITTF direction?

Further, it would seem that manufacturers would have to go through yet another design/manufacturing frenzy to generate even thicker blades to keep the speed constant. (E.g., the Allround Evolution Evolution. )

If they are more robust, that may be not a big issue. But indeed it's not just about the cost of the replacing the old balls that crack: it's throwing away all the old balls and get new ones, change robot heads, and the advertising frenzy that Anton cited:Try the new [Insert_brand] Moleculo, the PVC rubber top sheet that creates molecular bonds with the new PVC balls for extra long dwell time, incomparable spin and unlimited control.

The ITTF Executive Committee and the Equipment Committee shall request from Ball Manufacturers to produce 40mm non-celluloid balls after the 2012 Olympic Games, in preparation for the total ban of celluloid production by national governments around the world, and the Equipment Committee shall adjust the Technical Leaflet in terms of description of the new material and tolerances.

"The total ban of celluloid production by national governments" looks like another hoax.

Did I miss something? Celluloid banned by Nations around the world? All celluloid or just celluloid table tennis balls? No more celluloid key rings, toys and things?

How did all the nations around the world come togather to decide to ban celluloid? Reading the ITTF thing, it sounds like all the nations around the world chooze to ban all things celluloid. Is celluloid dangerous? I know it burns but so do many plastics.

So, are all the nations of the world banning all celluloid use and manufacture independant of the ITTF, or are all the nations in the ITTF banning celluloid balls by agreement through ITTF direction?

I mean, sure stop using it in toys, its flammable. But hey, it's not like we're going to go set our ping-pong balls on fire. (Okay, I admit... I do, it's quite fun to watch. But still, I don't imagine it is a fire hazard, we're mostly all adults, and children will more likely choke on them. Still, please don't make them bigger for choke proofing, =__=;;.)

In fact, it appears that practically the only use left for the substance is producing ping-pong balls. Is there perhaps significant environmental impacts in the production process of celluloid?

Hopefully, the new balls will feel almost identical to the old ones. *crosses fingers*

I know this has been covered before but I really wish the players (particularly China) would take steps to form their own international table tennis organization. ITTF is out of control and driven by greedy manufacturers. There's hardly any consideration for players.

I always feel awkward having to explain the current rules when basement players come to the table tennis club. There are all sorts of snapshots of the different rules that have been used over the past years. Some guys come with double black rackets that are literally from the 70s. Some people try to hide serves. Some guys used to play but stopped and still have speed glue. Some guys bring in old 38mm balls to play with because they think they need to bring their own balls. Alot of people still think the game is to 21. "Oh this is table tennis, not any other sport. We change the rules every few years because we don't know how to leave well enough alone."

Will they still weigh about 2.7 grams? They could make it a little heavier to slow down the game. A thicker wall would also mean more durability and a harder feel which is preferred by many people.

If they get rid of the seam, then in theory all of the balls can be 3 star grade. So they should be cheaper in the end because there will be less rejects (1 stars).

I highly doubt that and I hope it won't be true. Can you imagine all the clubs around the world that will now have to buy only 3 stars in bulk instead of 1 stars for practice?!

EDIT: Sorry, I felt like I should've elaborated -- I'm thinking that the manufacturers will still come up with a way to produce varying levels of quality in order to continue having 1, 2, and 3 stars. For the sake of the consumer, not everyone always buys 3 stars, especially in bulk (for practice, multiball, robot-use, etc.), so they may lose money on that idea. It's always best to present the consumer with a (perceived) choice rather than to force them to buy the same product.

In our sport, this is how most of the money is made. We're flooded with hundreds and hundreds of different rubbers/balls/blades/accessories that we may or may not need.

We need to take a closer look at the issue. By this decision of the BoD the celluloid balls are not banned. The BoD btw has no right to do that, because they have no no right to change anything in the Section 2 of the ITTF rules. So this rule can not be changed by a decision of the BoD:

2.03 THE BALL 2.03.01 The ball shall be spherical, with a diameter of 40mm. 2.03.02 The ball shall weigh 2.7g. 2.03.03 The ball shall be made of celluloid or similar plastics material and shall be white or orange, and matt.

That means, we will be able to use celluloid balls, provided that the AGM does not change the rule 2.03.

But I still have a bad feeling, because of their alleged worldwide "total ban" of celluloid coming, which I can not find any reference to on the internet. Why do they need to lie about it?

In our sport, this is how most of the money is made. We're flooded with hundreds and hundreds of different rubbers/balls/blades/accessories that we may or may not need.

Side note (slightly off topic):

This is absolutely true, and I highly doubt it's an accident. Various psychological and neuroeconomic experiments demonstrate that while people prefer choice, there is a limit to how much choice makes them happy. After a certain threshold of choice is surpassed, people find it increasingly difficult to be happy with their selection. In that case, too much choice benefits the company in that it keeps people spending, and is detrimental to the customer in that it keeps people from being as satisfied.

Given this principle, I couldn't help but immediately think of the EJ virus. Flood the market with a billion things with only slight differences between them and many people will be strongly compelled to sample it all, never quite being happy with what they have, always curious about the next thing around the corner.

It seems to be a potent tactic: keep people queasy with curiosity and you'll consistently get their money.

Will they still weigh about 2.7 grams? They could make it a little heavier to slow down the game. A thicker wall would also mean more durability and a harder feel which is preferred by many people.

If they get rid of the seam, then in theory all of the balls can be 3 star grade. So they should be cheaper in the end because there will be less rejects (1 stars).

I highly doubt that and I hope it won't be true. Can you imagine all the clubs around the world that will now have to buy only 3 stars in bulk instead of 1 stars for practice?!

EDIT: Sorry, I felt like I should've elaborated -- I'm thinking that the manufacturers will still come up with a way to produce varying levels of quality in order to continue having 1, 2, and 3 stars. For the sake of the consumer, not everyone always buys 3 stars, especially in bulk (for practice, multiball, robot-use, etc.), so they may lose money on that idea. It's always best to present the consumer with a (perceived) choice rather than to force them to buy the same product.

In our sport, this is how most of the money is made. We're flooded with hundreds and hundreds of different rubbers/balls/blades/accessories that we may or may not need.

1，2，3 star rating has nothing to do with the seam or material, it is just 3 star balls are harder, rounder and heavier than 1 star, there will be still 1 star balls.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum